Chris Christie prepares for questions from congress about monitoring contracts

WASHINGTON -- Republican New Jersey gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie today will testify before a congressional subcommittee about million-dollar monitoring contracts he awarded while U.S. attorney.

Christie, who spent seven years as the state's top federal prosecutor before challenging Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine in the fall election, is set to appear at 11 a.m. before the Democrat-dominated House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. The panel is looking into reforming corporate fraud settlements such as the one in which Christie awarded a monitoring contract worth as much as $52 million to his ex-boss, former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Saed Hindash/The Star-LedgerRepublican gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie, and Governor Jon Corzine greet each other before their June 17 speeches about their candidacies before approximately 400 business leaders during the Employeer Legislative Committees 50th Anniversary Dinner at the Hyatt Regency in Princeton.

Democrats said the contracts to "political allies" cast doubt on Christie's reputation for convicting more than 100 corrupt public officials.

Christie said the monitors were highly qualified for their appointments and their fees were paid by the corporations at fault, not taxpayers.

Christie, one of seven witnesses scheduled to testify today, previously told the committee that he needs to leave the hearing after two and a half hours due to commitments in New Jersey.

But the brief appearance could have lasting consequences for the Christie-Corzine contest, which is critical to national Democrats and Republicans as one of two governor's races this fall.

"He'll be guarded in what he says, because anything could be a potential soundbyte against him," said Seton Hall University political scientist Joseph Marbach. "Testifying before Congress is a huge challenge. You're at the mercy of individuals questioning you. You'll get some grandstanding."

The hearing will unfold against a complex political backdrop. Polls show Christie is 10 percentage points ahead of Corzine, whose painful state budget is up for approval in the Legislature today. But the wealthy Democratic incumbent can devote millions of dollars of his own money to taking down Christie, and national Democrats have already turned Christie's monitoring contracts into a negative advertising campaign.

APFormer U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft testifies in 2008 during a hearing before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law of the House Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. Ashcroft was to testify on a multi-million-dollar contact which was awarded to his lobbying firm by the Justice Department to monitor a settlement between an Indiana medical equipment company and a prosecutor.

The Ashcroft deal and others like it have dogged Christie, whose calling card in the U.S. Attorney's office was ethics.

Congressional Democrats began pushing for him to testify last year, but he did not appear at a March 2008 hearing on the settlements, known as deferred - prosecution agreements. The previous hearing did feature Ashcroft, whom Christie chose in 2007 to monitor Zimmer Holdings, an Indiana-based manufacturer. Zimmer was one of five medical implant makers that paid the government $311 million and accepted monitors to end an FBI fraud probe into kickbacks to surgeons.

The Zimmer contract became a controversial example of a surge in then-unregulated out-of-court settlements between the Justice Department and corporations under investigation. The agreements spare the company and its executives from charges , but typically require them to pledge changes and hire a monitor.

Christie's critics have also targeted his choice of David Kelley, former U.S. attorney in Manhattan, as another monitor in the medical implant case. Kelley had previously investigated a stock fraud case involving Christie's brother , but did not indict him. Christie has said he and Kelley never discussed his brother's case and Todd Christie was not indicted because he "committed no wrongdoing."

The deals surfaced as a campaign issue this spring, when Christie accepted campaign contributions worth $23,800 from the principals of a law firm headed by Herbert Stern. Stern, a former federal judge, had been picked by Christie for a paid monitorship of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey.

The donations by Stern, his partners and their wives -- worth $71,400 because of 2-for-1 public "matching funds" -- led Democrats and GOP primary candidate Steve Lonegan to accuse Christie of "pay to play."

Christie said there was no conflict involved but said he would end the "distraction" and not take any more contributions from former monitors.

At the time of Christie's appointments, the Justice Department had no rules governing when and how such monitors are chosen. On the eve of the Ashcroft hearing, the department issued policies, which included banning prosecutors from personally selecting corporate monitors and submitting appointments to Washington for approval.

New Jersey Reps. Frank Pallone (D-6th Dist.) and Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-8th Dist.) -- among Christie's most vocal critics on the issue -- said those rules do not go far enough, and have introduced a bill to require disclosure of monitors' compensation and allow judges to choose monitors from a pre-approved pool.